It just occurs to me that CE is open source, which means any claim of copyright violation must be targeted to the specific contributor(s) related to the alleged infraction, not merely the present holder/repository of the code/software that contains the offending code.

This means, for example, nobody could target github for a potential copyright violation by one code in one software stored on its servers. But one could ask github to remove the offending code/software until complaint has been decided in court. But if I understand correctly, that's not what the complaint was meant to do.

Instead, it's meant to target the intended purpose of the offending software with regards to potential copyright violation of plaintiff's own code/software. But that's a sort of vigilante claim where the plaintiff claims to act for the benefit of all, not just for himself, because for the claim to be valid for the plaintiff specifically, it would have to demonstrate that the intended purpose of the offending software is not just to "potentially violate anybody's copyright", but to specifically violate plaintiff's copyright. As far as I'm aware, CE can be used to "violate" anybody's copyright in the sense claimed by plaintiff. However, the same can be said of a hex editor, a computer, a smartphone, the entire internet, and so forth, for their respective potential intended purpose as instruments to be used in the violation of anybody's copyright, let alone plaintiff's copyright. Plaintiff is not going after those if I'm not mistaken. But maybe plaintiff wants to establish precedent first so that it can go after those later?

At this point it should be obvious to everybody that the complaint/notice cannot possibly be legitimate.

The point is I'm not an expert and I thought of everything I wrote above. Who would believe that a genuine expert would not at least think of the same, especially an expert who would be advising the plaintiff in an attempt to convince the plaintiff of the legitimacy of his complaint?

It just occurs to me that CE is open source, which means any claim of copyright violation must be targeted to the specific contributor(s) related to the alleged infraction, not merely the present holder/repository of the code/software that contains the offending code.

You did read the part about the tables being the problem and not CE itself, right?

It just occurs to me that CE is open source, which means any claim of copyright violation must be targeted to the specific contributor(s) related to the alleged infraction, not merely the present holder/repository of the code/software that contains the offending code.

You did read the part about the tables being the problem and not CE itself, right?

Yes, I did. However, in light of DB's actions, I can safely assume that the content of the notice was vague, giving further validity to the conclusion that it is not legitimate.

There's more. For example, the news article on Zero Lives, with these quotes:

Quote:

When asked to comment on the situation, ESA Vice President of Media Relations Dan Hewitt said the organization did not want to comment on specific details.

That's code for either of two possible meanings:

"I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm going to comment anyway cuz I'm pushing my company's agenda which happens to be related to the question's overarching topic."

Or

"I know exactly what you're talking about, but I can't comment on details because it's still being decided what steps to take next, and I'm also going to comment further on my company's agenda and I don't want to look like an idjit who just reveals information that would otherwise damage my company's reputation, or worse that could weaken a future court hearing on that case. But more specifically, the notice that we sent to DB was very vague, and we're not sure why it was so vague cuz normally we send notices with specific details to allow the target of the notice to act in good faith by removing the specific offending code/software without undue effort or costs or disruption to his business (cuz that opens the door for counter-suit, and we don't want that crap), and we don't want to look like idjits because of the vagueness of the notice, so I won't confirm we sent it just so we can deny we ever sent it, or blame some rogue element of our company, which we will promptly fire once the whole thing blows over. Also, I don't want to confirm this specific notice because of the dubious circumstances, i.e. the simultaneous DDOS, which even the slightest appearance of complicity would certainly damage my company's reputation."

And this quote below illustrates the agenda he's pushing:

Quote:

According to Hewitt, the notices sent by the organization are "in line with rights afforded to content creators" under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The bold word is plural (DB received one, so for ESA's statement here to apply specifically to the notice DB received, it would have to be singular), therefore this statement has a different meaning. It means that ESA sends copyright notices all the time, and the ESA believes these notices are "in line with rights afforded to content creators" under the DMCA.

Or for example, the Wikipedia entry on Cheat Engine, with a recent addition related to this situation, with this quote:

Unless the particular game in question is so badly coded that it allows a player to do the above without having access to the server through some backdoor or some genuinely illegal hacking of the server's encryption for example, that claim is pure bullshit of the highest degree. CE does not allow one to do that in any way shape or form. Granted, CE has the ability to run LUA code, and such code could be written to perform certain functions, but in no way does that make CE or its creators/contributors responsible for any such LUA code or functions written by anybody else using CE in such fashion, nor does any such LUA code make all other user-created tables or LUA code responsible for anything. And we're back to the argument that the internet/computers/smartphones/hexeditors are responsible for all the hacking and copyright violations that are committed with their use.

You see, it's Cheat Engine which is blamed for the violation, not any table or LUA script, thus the valid argument that one cannot blame Cheat Engine for that, unless one can demonstrate that Cheat Engine is specifically intended to perform those specific violations against the specific plaintiff.

In no way does any of it constitute confirmation of the legitimacy of the notice DB received. On the contrary, it raises more questions than it answers. For example, why does the ESA not want to comment on the specifics? It can still confirm that it sent the notice, it does confirm that it sends notices all the time, so what's the big deal about confirming this particular notice? It can confirm the notice, without actually revealing any detail, and it's done all the time elsewhere by all kinds of plaintiffs. Also, the Zero Lives article author declares a conflict of interest below the article, with this quote:

Quote:

Journalist and Software Developer at Moonlight Multimedia...

He's a software developer so he cannot possibly be expected to be neutral on this topic. What this means is that he cannot be expected to be thorough or even smart with his "investigation" in the matter, which happens to be pertinent to his main job. If anything, we should expect him to use his journalist status to push an agenda pertinent to his software developer status. I could be polite and give him the benefit of the doubt, but I've seen so much BS from "journalists" on the intarwebs, I can spot it almost instantly when I see it.

If he was really as torublesome, he would have been behind bars ages ago or dead.

You have been watching too many western movies

Thats funny considering America is a country where law is non functional. A judge can block any law he desires, as recent events show. Getting someone to jail isn't really that hard. But let's not get that far, if the idiot in question here was a real pain the ass for the big companies, they would have fined him for enough cash to stop the development.

Let we check...
1. What kind of software's and app's you use and installed on your machines ?
2. How many from them is original which you bought it as legal ?
3. How many app's cracker, key activators, debuggers, reverse eng. tools, code sniper, etc as freely share ?
4. How many and how easy to find and get full version of app via web and or on the market ?
5. How easy to use this magic word on a browser : ".....full version free download", "....including crack", "...with keygen..." ?.

who are to blame ?. App maker ?. Developer ?. Programmer ?. Rules Maker ?..... Net Worker ?.....
My logic, if Pascal app, Delphi, XML and others never found and exist, then CE also never.... !?
if Lua, VB, RPG, PL/1, Lotus, SuperCalc, Excel and others and other never found and exist then never... !?
if DOS, Windows, LINUX, Apple and others never found and exist, then computer never...!?

We can get and know the ROOT if we must find someone to be blame..... "From the ground back to the ground, from dust back to dust, from ash back to ash..."

..., if the idiot in question here was a real pain the ass for the big companies, they would have fined him for enough cash to stop the development.

While the removal of table/trainer section is inconvenient, I think most community understand and accept the decision and adapt to the change.

I don't know the history, I assume the site/forum is not start as a cheat provider nor ever claimed to be, so I think the site/forum is not obligatory to fight or ignore the accusation like bossland etc. If so there is no point to blame the site/forum/DB.

Unless the particular game in question is so badly coded that it allows a player to do the above without having access to the server through some backdoor or some genuinely illegal hacking of the server's encryption for example, that claim is pure bullshit of the highest degree. CE does not allow one to do that in any way shape or form. Granted, CE has the ability to run LUA code, and such code could be written to perform certain functions, but in no way does that make CE or its creators/contributors responsible for any such LUA code or functions written by anybody else using CE in such fashion, nor does any such LUA code make all other user-created tables or LUA code responsible for anything. And we're back to the argument that the internet/computers/smartphones/hexeditors are responsible for all the hacking and copyright violations that are committed with their use.

I think you don't know much about gamehacking and how it all works, i didn't want to say this in public for the fear it might worsen the situation for DB but since it has all been decided and ESA have no basis to trouble CE any further. I have personally been involved in threads where such "cheats" were posted (not by me but someone else), i told DB when this issue first arose.

Sure, the tool is never blamed but action has always been taken against works created with it. A big problem i see with this thread is some assumptions (by idiotic one post posters) are believed as fact and your post is taking some of those assumptions as fact too. So it's not worth arguing with._________________

So far none of you DB defendants provded a single statue that would prove Beth's or Blizz's point.

It's a common practice for big companies to treat people like idiots, to scare them with law suits, because most people are worthless cowards and will pay anything to not get into trouble, even if they don't have to. DB is perhaps such an idividual. If he was really as torublesome, he would have been behind bars ages ago or dead.

FlipFloppy wrote:

Unless the particular game in question is so badly coded that it allows a player to do the above without having access to the server through some backdoor or some genuinely illegal hacking of the server's encryption for example, that claim is pure bullshit of the highest degree. CE does not allow one to do that in any way shape or form. Granted, CE has the ability to run LUA code, and such code could be written to perform certain functions, but in no way does that make CE or its creators/contributors responsible for any such LUA code or functions written by anybody else using CE in such fashion, nor does any such LUA code make all other user-created tables or LUA code responsible for anything. And we're back to the argument that the internet/computers/smartphones/hexeditors are responsible for all the hacking and copyright violations that are committed with their use.

Something I think a lot of people are overlooking and/or just do not understand is how intellectual property is protected. There is no police / task force going around ensuring that company copyrights are being upheld and are not being infringed on or that their brand/image is not being tarnished. Or that their method of income/revenue is not being harmed or affected by others actions.

Companies are responsible for protecting their property themselves, no one else is. That said, anything that they feel may be harming their brand is up to them to act on to protect and prevent any damages.

Things such as unlocking DLC without paying for it, gaining coins or some other currency that is purchased with real life money by other means, etc. are all things that harm a companies brand and revenue. It is fully up to them if they feel if something such as a cheat table is harming them enough to have action taken.

For example, look at all the Nintendo drama about YouTube (and other video sites) where Nintendo copyright strikes/claims any video posted that includes any content of a Nintendo character, such as 'Lets Play' or 'React' style videos. Unless you are whitelisted by Nintendo, they will make a copyright claim against your video to ensure you do not gain any monetization on it.

What happened here, if it is true, is that a company felt that something on this site was badly affecting their IP (intellectual property) and defended it via a DMCA notice to DB. Ultimately, it was up to DB on how to react to the notice as they are nothing more than a 'good-faith' gesture to give the targeted person a chance to remove the claimed content or further action will be taken. Getting a DMCA notice does not mean that he was sued, or is being take to court. It just means that a company reached out with a higher than a simple email method attempting to enforce the removal of something that was hosted here.

It was fully up to DB on how he wanted to respond. He could have ignored it, he could have removed the single (or multiple) claimed things in the notice, etc. Instead, he chose to remove all tables to avoid the legal issues in the future, with the statement as he said about how most games are online or have some online connection of sorts.

Does it suck that there is no central location for both the tool and its third-party works? Sure it does, but that is up to Dark Byte to decide since it is on him if something legal does happen. Something a lot of people here just seem to not realise and instead want to just complain that tables are gone and that hes a 'moron'. Another thing people don't understand is that this is not the first time this site has had legal issues and Dark Byte probably just has no interest in dealing with more of the same things in the future.

A California court ordered German firm Bossland to pay $8.6m (£6.8m) to Blizzard for 42,818 counts of copyright infringement.

The tools included the ability to see other players' positions, health scores and other information from a distance within games.

Rephrase the bold for a more accurate description of reality:

"The games included the ability to see other players' positions, health scores and other information from a distance within games."

A client side tool cannot do any of the above if the client side game does not provide any such information, therefore fault lies with the game, not the tool. Then if a game does provide the required information, this information can be accessed without doing anything to the game client. Instead, a tool can intercept data packets, read their content, from there build an overlay with pertinent information, or even control game functions like mouse aiming for an aimbot for example. As far as I'm aware, data packets are not part of any sort of copyright protection, indeed data packets are copied every time they go from one hop to the next from server to client and back again. Granted, they are copied for the purpose of transmission, like a postman, but they are copied nonetheless and as far as I know there's not a single hop that agreed to any sort of license agreement or copyright restriction or anything like that.

Anyways, that case is different in that the tools are specifically intended to cheat in specific games. CE is a generic tool that can be used to do most everything a hex editor can do, and more, including injecting code for example. However, for the bulk of CE's functions, a table is necessary and is not an integral part of CE, i.e. CE is not provided with pre-written tables, nor is CE designed in any specific way to perform any specific infraction or anything of the sort. All such tables are written by CE users.

Come to think of it, DB did the right thing, regardless of whether the notice is legitimate or not. In fact, now I believe DB should have done what he did a long time ago. As the situation stands, if a game dev wants to go after CE, he can't, instead he'll have to go after the specific table's author, and he won't even be able to go after a table repository independent from CE/DB, because then like any other repository, each piece of code is also independent from all other and if blame is to be assigned, it must be assigned specifically, it cannot be assigned generally.

So can anybody tell me when and where DB said that ESA / Bethseda said that tables are thing that must go ?

Hmm I do not get it , why they think that tables are bad ? Somebody was using them in MMO or what ?
As far as I know here were tables only and mainly for Single player games or am I wrong ?

Thank you guys

They probably made a claim against DB for a specific table or specific set of tables that did something that hurt profits for a game, such as accessing DLC for free, obtaining currency that is normally bought with real life money, etc. Some tables on the site that were designed and made for single player parts of a game often worked in multiplayer parts too, so it could be any number of tables that they targeted.

It was not an attack on all tables, just something in specific._________________

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum